US & Canada

Washington’s top diplomat calls the suspected plot ‘a very serious situation’ after five were arrested over the weekend.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said a “foreign actor” was involved in a suspected bomb plot near an airbase in the United Kingdom used by the US military.

Police arrested five men, all British nationals from London, in their early to mid-20s, on Sunday after being alerted by a local farmer about three white vans driving towards RAF Fairford, a British base that houses US bombers flying missions against Iran.

The counterterrorism police said on Monday they were investigating whether individuals were acting for a foreign state in an apparent plot to attack the airbase. They later said the suspects would be released on bail.

Commenting on the suspected plot and arrests on the Hannity programme on Fox News late on Monday, Rubio said, “What happened, what almost happened, what could have happened in the UK over the weekend is a very serious situation.”

“It’s one that clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor. I won’t get into great detail about that yet,” he added.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had said in July the Fairford base was a legitimate target.

Iran’s embassy in London said in a statement on Monday it “categorically rejects and strongly condemns the recent unfounded and malicious speculations” that it was involved, which it said would fuel “Iranophobia propaganda” in the UK.

Trump said on Sunday the UK and the US had had the suspects “under investigation” for a while and alleged, “They were looking to do big damage to our fort.”

After hearing news that suspects were being released on bail, Trump said on Monday the case “might be” linked to Iran but declined to elaborate.

US bombers

The UK gave the US permission in March to use Fairford for “specific defensive operations into Iran” to destroy Iranian missiles at source.

US bombers and other planes have since been seen taking off and landing at the base – the only one on the British mainland used for this purpose.

Residents in the rural Cotswolds area surrounding Fairford said the site, which hosts a range of US military equipment and personnel, had seen increased activity and security in recent months.

Authorities evacuated about 85 households from a nearby village early on Sunday, but they were allowed to return home the next day.

Tehran has previously warned London against allowing its bases to be used by the US in operations against Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has accused London of “putting British lives in danger” by allowing the bases to be used “for aggression against Iran”.

Argentina gives UK two weeks to cease operations or face maritime court action.

Argentinian President Javier Milei has threatened the British government with legal action unless it stops an oil project off the disputed Falkland Islands, the British-administered territory over which Buenos Aires claims sovereignty.

Milei gave the United Kingdom a two-week ultimatum on Monday evening, saying it must halt all work on the Sea Lion oil project or Argentina will ask the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a maritime court in Hamburg, Germany, to order a stop to the project.

He called the operations “the illegal plundering of our resources” and declared “Argentina will not stand idly by” as the UK causes “irreversible and irreparable” damage.

The companies developing the project, Israel’s Navitas and Britain’s Rockhopper, have shrugged off Argentina’s threats, insisting they have valid exploration licences issued by the UK.

The tribunal, an independent court established under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, can issue legally binding emergency orders. But even if it ordered the UK to halt the project, it has no means of forcing the government to comply.

The UK rejects Argentina’s sovereignty claim, arguing that the islanders have the right to determine their own future and develop their natural resources. In a referendum in 2013, residents of the Falklands voted overwhelmingly to remain a British overseas territory. Argentina says the islands were populated illegally.

Milei’s administration has already taken legal action against the project authorised by Britain, arguing it violates a United Nations resolution calling for both sides to desist from unilateral actions in the islands until their dispute is resolved.

Buenos Aires has doubled down on its claim over the Falklands since United States President Donald Trump said Washington was open to reviewing its historically neutral stance on the territory.

The British government for its part has said it stands behind the businesses operating near the Falklands.

The dispute over the Falkland Islands led to a war between Britain and Argentina in 1982. It killed 649 Argentinian soldiers, 255 British soldiers and three islanders after Argentina invaded the archipelago that year.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

OpenAI has cancelled the release of its latest AI model over safety concerns, according to media reports.

The move to scrap the release of GPT-6.1 Astra, reported by the Wall Street Journal and CNN on Monday, comes amid heightened concerns about AI’s potential to do catastrophic harm following a slew of incidents involving AI agents going rogue.

More to follow…

Amid tight Iowa midterm races, President Trump emphasises steel industry revival with project announcement.

Just weeks before the midterm elections, United States President Donald Trump has announced that a Minnesota-based steel manufacturer intends to build a $15bn steel mill project in Iowa, as the White House tries to highlight its focus on domestic manufacturing.

On Monday, joined by executives from Mesabi Metallics, which recently opened Minnesota’s first new iron ore mine in 50 years, Trump announced the project. It is expected to begin production in 2030 and could bring more than 1,700 jobs to the region, with an initial production capacity of 7.5 million tonnes per year.

The first phase of construction for the project will generate 5,000–6,000 construction jobs, a White House official told Al Jazeera.

The plant in Iowa will use iron ore from the Mesabi Iron Range in nearby Minnesota. Mesabi, which is owned by Indian conglomerate Essar Group, invested more than $2.5bn to build the mine in Minnesota.

“President Trump is delivering on his promise to rebuild American industry, re-shore manufacturing, and create new jobs. Today’s announcement underscores the president’s historic efforts to revitalize the US steel industry—supporting local communities, strengthening supply chains, and protecting our national security,” White House Spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement to Al Jazeera.

The steel industry has loomed over the first half of Trump’s second term in office. The president imposed 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium imports last year in an effort to boost domestic production, but also threatened to increase prices of products that use those materials, from soda cans to washing machines to cars.

“These are your 232 tariffs, the steel tariffs at work. Without those tariffs, this mine does not get built, and this steel plant does not get built”, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in the Oval Office on Monday.

Trump also solidified the US government’s stake in US Steel, which was acquired by Japan’s Nippon Steel in June 2025. As part of the deal, the US government received a so-called “golden share”, which gives the president the authority to appoint a board member to weigh in on decisions that would impact domestic steel production.

Midterm stakes

The announcement comes a little more than a month ahead of the US midterm elections, and the economy is top of mind for US voters.

Among Republicans, Trump is losing steam on his handling of economic issues, with a new September 21 Ipsos poll finding that 56 percent approve of his handling of the economy, down from 80 percent.

Iowa is in play as a seat Democrats could flip in the midterm elections, with Republican Ashley Hinson facing Democrat Josh Turek in November and with polls suggesting a tight race.

Hinson joined the president in the Oval Office for the announcement.

A poll conducted by the Republican-aligned pollster the Trafalgar Group showed Hinson with a two-point lead, while an InsiderAdvantage poll, which is considered more nonpartisan, found Turek leading by two points.

California jury finds Apple infringed two Taction patents but did not willfully violate them; Apple plans to appeal.

Apple has been ordered to pay more than $5.7bn for using patented technology from Taction Technology to power haptic feedback, the vibrations users feel when they receive a notification or press a button.

A jury in federal court in the Southern district of California found that the iPhone maker infringed two patents owned by the San Diego-based company.

“We’re happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights,” said Taction attorney Lance Yang following the verdict on Friday.

The verdict is the culmination of a legal battle that began in 2021, when Taction first filed its lawsuit against Apple. In 2023, a federal judge ruled that Apple had not infringed Taction’s patents, but an appeals court revived the case last year.

“Apple is capitalising on Taction’s innovation and success by selling devices that infringe Taction’s patents. Apple is utilising Taction’s patented inventions without license or authority from Taction. Taction has brought this action to remedy Apple’s infringement,” Taction said in the original 31-page complaint.

It also claimed that Apple “at a minimum believed there was a high probability that the accused products were covered by Taction’s patents, but willfully blinded itself to Taction’s patents and the infringing nature of the Accused Products”.

The jury, however, found that Apple did not wilfully infringe the patents.

Apple said it plans to appeal the verdict.

“Apple’s Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology, which Taction’s own testing of Apple’s products confirmed during trial,” Apple said in response.

The verdict comes at a pivotal moment for the company, amid transitions in its C-suite. In September, John Ternus took over as CEO from Tim Cook, who led Apple for 15 years. The leadership change comes as the Cupertino, California-based tech giant lags behind other major technology companies in rolling out its artificial intelligence products.

Apple shares fell on Monday, declining about two percent as trading got underway.

Matthew VanDyke and six Ukrainians were accused of smuggling weapons and drones to armed ethnic groups fighting India.

Matthew VanDyke, a United States citizen held in India for more than six months and accused of supporting ethnic separatist groups, has been temporarily released on bail and returned to the US.

The 47-year-old arrived on Saturday morning and reunited with his family, according to a family spokesperson.

VanDyke, who runs a Washington, DC-based consultancy that says it provides “free security consulting, training, supplies and other services to vulnerable populations”, was detained in March by Indian authorities, along with six Ukrainian nationals who were also released on Saturday.

India’s main opposition Congress party said that, despite being “accused of plotting terrorist acts”, VanDyke was allowed to return home from New Delhi.

“Obviously US pressure determined this outcome, but what did India get in return?” Jairam Ramesh, a legislator and spokesperson for the party, posted on X.

VanDyke’s family told Al Jazeera before his release that his health was failing and he had lost weight after going on a month-long hunger strike in Tihar Jail to try to improve conditions in prison. He had to use a wheelchair to attend hearings, according to his mother, Sharon. VanDyke denied the accusations against him, and his family said he was in the region documenting the situation faced by minority ethnic groups.

Earlier this month, Indian prosecutors declined to bring terrorism charges against VanDyke and the others. Instead, prosecutors formally accused them of visa violations for entering restricted areas along the Myanmar border.

The Maryland native is a former filmmaker and rebel fighter during the Arab Spring and spent about six months in a Libyan prison during the Muammar Gaddafi regime. He was held alongside James Foley, a journalist who was later killed by ISIL in Syria. In recent years, VanDyke was based in Ukraine, where his consultancy helped train Ukrainian military forces.

In a statement to Al Jazeera before VanDyke’s release, James Foley’s mother, Diane, who now heads a foundation named after him, said she was “deeply saddened by his arrest in India and by his apparent poor health.” She added that her foundation called for “his release on humanitarian grounds.”

The Strait of Hormuz remains the most perilous choke point on the global map as Iran continues to disrupt traffic by attacking vessels. A recent proposal by the Islamic Republic to open the waterway within seven days raised hopes that the situation could go back to normal. United States President Donald Trump, however, rejected the offer.

To understand the strategic calculus behind his high-stakes decision, one must look beyond the immediate tactical noise and peer into the deeper logic of deterrence.

On its surface, the rejection of a temporary truce in the world’s most vital energy corridor appears to be a reckless gamble – a provocation inviting the very conflagration the West seeks to avoid. But viewed through the lens of cold realism, the rejection was not only a calculated necessity; it was the right decision.

The Iranian regime’s proposal was a classic exercise in asymmetric diplomacy. It offered a brief window of stability, a transactional pause, in exchange for what would have amounted to a de facto relaxation of American pressure. To accept such terms would have meant embracing the delusional belief that a terrorist power can be bribed into good behaviour by accepting its terms of engagement.

Had Washington accepted, it would have validated Iran’s self-assumed right to turn the spigot of global commerce on and off at will. By flatly rejecting the offer, Trump signalled that freedom of navigation is not a chip to be bartered in a week-long bazaar, but an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite of international order.

The timing of this gambit – on the eve of the critical midterm elections – has naturally drawn the ire of the domestic political class. Critics argue that risking an energy crisis and a subsequent spike in oil prices weeks before Americans head to the ballot box is an act of political self-immolation. This view, while superficially plausible, misunderstands both the nature of the electorate and the psychology of our adversaries.

The Iranians chose this moment to put forward their proposal precisely because of the midterm elections. They are sophisticated observers of American domestic politics. They calculated that an administration facing an electoral test would be paralysed by the fear of rising fuel prices and would eagerly grasp at any diplomatic lifeline, however flimsy, to keep the peace until November.

Had Trump capitulated to save Republicans a few points at the polls, he would have handed Iran a profound psychological victory. He would have demonstrated that American foreign policy is subservient to the domestic election calendar – a vulnerability that every autocracy from Moscow to Beijing would immediately exploit.

By taking the gamble before the midterm elections, Trump has turned the tables. He has demonstrated that his administration is willing to absorb short-term political pain in pursuit of long-term strategic clarity. This is the essence of credible deterrence.

Deterrence is not merely a function of military hardware; it is a function of perceived will. When an adversary believes you are too weak, too compromised, or too worried about the next election cycle to defend your core interests, deterrence fails. By rejecting the seven-day proposal, the Trump administration proved it could not be blackmailed by the electoral calendar.

Trump’s decision reflects a sophisticated understanding of the regime in Tehran. The Islamic Republic is currently facing an acute internal economic crisis, a direct consequence of the sustained American maximum-pressure campaign.

The seven-day proposal was not a gesture of Iranian confidence; it was a sign of desperation disguised as a diplomatic overture. It was an attempt to buy breathing room, fragment the expanding international coalition against Tehran and project an image of being in control to its own restive population.

To grant Iran that reprieve would have been to throw a lifeline to an antagonist regime on the ropes. Clearly, this offer was only made because US strategy is working and Iran’s economy is cratering.

History teaches us that truces with terrorist regimes are rarely precursors to permanent peace; they are merely opportunities for the aggressor to rearm, recalibrate and choose the next moment of confrontation on more favourable terms. A short-term guarantee of open shipping lanes implied that any day, the threat could return, magnified by the legitimacy Washington would have afforded to Iran’s leverage.

The critics who cry havoc at this decision are the heirs of the foreign policy establishment that spent decades managing decline through endless, inconclusive and failed negotiations. They prefer the comfortable fiction of a temporary deal to the hard reality of a sustained geopolitical contest.

President Trump’s gamble is risky, yes. The potential for miscalculation in the narrow waters of the Gulf is always present. But the risk of inaction, or of a pliant accommodation, is far greater.

By holding the line, the administration has reaffirmed a foundational principle of US global stewardship: the US will not permit rogue states to hold the global economy hostage.

The rejection of the Iranian proposal is the correct path because it chooses clarity of American resolve over partisan political convenience. It signals to the regime in Iran that its leverage is artificial and its economic isolation is permanent unless its behaviour changes.

This November, American voters will decide the composition of the US Congress based on a multitude of domestic and foreign policy factors. But on the global stage, Trump remains steadfast by demonstrating that principle trumps political expediency.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Beef prices are soaring in China. Across the Pacific Ocean in the United States, cattle farmers are complaining that their businesses are becoming increasingly unsustainable. And in India, poultry rearers are slashing their production targets because they cannot afford feed.

More than 90 percent of the world’s population eats meat in one form or another — and a looming meat crisis threatens to affect what they buy at the market, what they cook at home, and what’s served on the table.

At the heart of this is a chain of decisions and uncertainties that consumers rarely see. A cow has to be raised for years before it can become beef. Chickens need feed, much of it tied to global grain and soya bean markets. Farmers need land, water and weather conditions that allow them to keep animals alive and productive.

When any link in this chain is disrupted, a spiralling crisis ensues.

So what is putting the pressure on meat production, and what does it mean for billions of people around the world?

Declining cattle stocks in Brazil, US and China

Brazil, the US and China are the world’s three biggest beef producers, together supplying more than half of the world’s beef. But their cattle herds are shrinking at the same time.

According to a March estimate by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Brazil’s total herd this year is estimated at 177.4 million cattle — a nearly 8 percent drop from 192.5 million in 2024.

Over in the US, cattle numbers are at a historic low.

The USDA counted 86.2 million cattle and calves on farms on January 1, 2026. The number of beef cows — the females needed to produce future calves — was 27.6 million, down 1 percent from a year earlier. The 2025 calf crop was also down 2 percent.

In China, the USDA estimated a cattle head count of 94 million in January 2026, down 14 percent from 105 million in January 2024.

In all three cases, beef production is also projected to be down in 2026.

The USDA predicts a 2 percent decline in Brazil’s beef production and a 5 percent fall in exports. As for the US, beef production in 2026 is likely to be 4 percent lower than last year. China’s total beef supply this year is projected to be 12 percent lower than 2024.

The decline in domestic production, coupled with shrinking supplies that can be imported, has sent prices soaring in China — the world’s largest beef consumer and importer.

What’s driving down cattle herds and beef production?

The reasons are many, and they vary from country to country.

Brazil counts China and the European Union as two major markets for its beef exports. But both have imposed import restrictions that have disincentivised Brazilian beef manufacturers. That is partly responsible for the country’s decreased cattle head count, according to an analysis by Augusto Neto at S&P Global, the market intelligence firm.

Additionally, Brazil is currently in what is known as a cattle reversion cycle — when rearers reduce the slaughter of animals and instead try to preserve their female stock to help rebuild their herd — according to the USDA.

In the US, droughts have hit 60 percent of the country’s cattle-rearing area, according to a report by Sampad Nandy of S&P Global. With grazing areas decreasing, feed costs have risen.

Three major organisations, representing breeders in the states of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, issued a joint statement this week arguing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids were disrupting their already strained operations. The meat industry depends heavily on immigrant workers.

If beef prices are rising, shouldn’t rearers want to produce more beef?

In theory, yes. But in practice, high prices do not automatically mean that more cattle can be produced quickly.

Cattle production is constrained by biological supply cycles, Kenneth Foster, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, told Al Jazeera. It can take a couple of years for a producer who receives a signal from the market to expand production and actually see the resulting animals enter the beef supply. The quickest way to rebuild a herd is to keep female cattle that might otherwise have been sold and use them for breeding. That is what Brazil is now doing.

But that creates a difficult economic calculation. A producer can sell an animal today at a high price, or keep it for breeding and wait for the next generation. That means carrying the costs and risks of keeping the animal while waiting for it to reproduce.

The result is a market in which strong demand and limited supply can persist even when prices are already high.

The USDA expects the cattle herd to begin rebuilding in the US, but the process is gradual.

The US and Brazil cases illustrate one of the central problems facing meat production: sometimes the constraint is not technology, land or money.

It is time.

Europe’s move from beef to poultry

Meanwhile, Europe presents a different picture. The continent is witnessing a structural change in what consumers are eating.

The EU produced about 42.7 million tonnes of meat in 2025. But EU meat production is projected to decline by about 3 percent between 2025 and 2035, with beef production projected to fall by 10 percent and pork by 7 percent. Poultry is the exception: production is projected to rise by 5 percent.

This shift is also visible in consumption.

Consumption of EU beef and pigmeat is projected to decline through 2035, while poultry consumption is expected to increase by 9 percent.

Beef and pork require longer production cycles and face different economic and environmental pressures. Poultry, by contrast, can respond much more quickly to changes in demand because chickens reach market weight within weeks rather than years.

That difference is becoming increasingly important. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook expects poultry to be the fastest-growing major meat category globally over the next decade, helped by its relatively low cost and short production cycle.

Europe is therefore becoming an example of how a meat system can adapt without simply producing more of everything. Some forms of meat become harder or more expensive to produce, while others expand to fill part of the space.

Poultry has problems too — as India shows

Yet the poultry industry faces its own challenges, with India offering an example.

In June, a large section of India’s poultry industry announced plans to cut production by 25 percent after soya meal prices rose by more than 40 percent in a month.

The decision was announced by the All India Poultry Breeders’ Association after producers faced sharply higher feed costs and a seasonal decline in demand. Producers also began culling parent breeder stocks — birds needed to produce future generations of poultry.

Soya meal is an important protein source in animal feed. When its price rises sharply, poultry producers face a choice: absorb higher costs, raise prices, or reduce the number of birds they produce.

In India’s case, producers chose to cut production.

The consequences extended beyond individual farms. The Reuters news agency reported in May that Indian soya meal prices had risen 41 percent in one month to a four-year high of 66,000 rupees ($687.5) per tonne. India subsequently cancelled 25,000 tonnes of soya meal export contracts and began turning to soya bean imports from African countries.

The takeaway: a shock in one part of the agricultural system can move quickly through the meat supply chain globally.

As farmers try to protect their livelihoods and families try to keep food on the table, changing climates, rising prices, shifting dietary preferences and growing trade barriers are together reshaping the future of meat — and what we eat.

The Houston Texans’ linebacker wore eye black with the names of slain sisters Lana, 12, and Bana, eight.

American football player Azeez Al-Shaair has once again honoured Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza, despite previous fines and the threat of being removed from games, this time wearing the names of sisters Lana and Bana Ahmad on his eye black during his latest National Football League (NFL) game.

The Houston Texans linebacker took the field against the Indianapolis Colts on Sunday wearing the names of Lana, 12, and her sister Bana, eight, who were killed along with their family in an Israeli air attack earlier this month.

Hours before the game, Al-Shaair posted about the sisters on his Instagram account and followed it with a photo of the black tape bearing their names that he would later wear during the game. The image also showed part of Al-Shaair’s black shoes with flags of Palestine and Sudan stitched on them.

Al-Shaair, a Black American Muslim player, has repeatedly spoken about the plight of Palestinians. On September 13, he wore the name of Hind Rajab, the five-year-old girl who was killed in Gaza after Israeli soldiers opened fire on her family’s stranded car on January 29, 2024.

The NFL fined him $11,491 for breaching the league’s code of conduct on players’ clothing and equipment during a match against the Buffalo Bills.

However, basketball player Kyrie Irving stepped in and offered to pay the fine for Al-Shaair, who later confirmed that he had been in touch with the nine-time NBA All-Star.

Al-Shaair brushed off talk of the fine while speaking to reporters last week. “It’s bigger to me; what’s a life worth? Is a life worth $11,000? No, I think it’s priceless,” he said.

In his subsequent game against the Cincinnati Bengals, Al-Shaair then wore an eye black — a sticker or paint frequently used by NFL players to reduce glare — with the name of Wafa Akila, an eight-year-old who was killed along with her father in an Israeli attack in western Gaza as they were making their way home.

He was also fined in January, during the NFL’s last season, for displaying the message “Stop The Genocide” on his nose tape. While it did not specifically refer to a particular conflict, it was widely understood to be about Gaza and Sudan.

Following his NFL outing in which he wore the name of Rajab, Al-Shaair was informed he would have to remove the eye black or he would not be permitted to continue playing in the game, according to reports in US media.

US Democratic politician Isaiah Martin condemned the NFL’s reported reaction to Al-Shaair wearing eye black with the names of slain Palestinian children.

“This harms no one by letting him do this,” Martin said in a post on X. “I think it’s absurd they were fining him, but those were the ‘rules’ and he agreed to pay the fine. Removal from the game is INSANE. This shouldn’t stand!”

The Israeli genocide in Gaza has severely limited education for the Strip’s 660,000 children, with 90 percent of schools left damaged or destroyed.

Israel has killed at least 21,500 children since October 7, 2023, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza.

The United States and China have unveiled a list of goods recommended for reduced tariffs following last week’s summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.

The release of the list on Sunday comes after Trump and Xi agreed to work towards lowering tariffs on $60bn worth of trade.

The agreement, which covers $30bn of each side’s imports, identifies 77 Chinese goods and more than 1,600 US products to be considered for more favourable tariff treatment.

Chinese goods on the list include microwave ovens, fish hooks, artificial flowers and weighing scales.

US exports identified for lower tariffs include poultry, dairy products, noodles, eggs, peanuts, canned tomatoes, pure-breed breeding horses, and silk.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the agreement would improve market access for about 30 percent of US exports to China and also benefit US consumers.

“The Trump Administration will continue to pursue fair, balanced, and reciprocal trade with China by ensuring compliance with commitments on agricultural and energy purchases, pursuing balanced trade in non-sensitive goods, and securing market access for American farmers, manufacturers, businesses, and workers,” Greer said in a statement.

China’s Ministry of Commerce, which confirmed the list on Monday, shortly after the White House announcement, said the sides would discuss “a reciprocal tariff reduction framework of $30 billion for $30 billion, aiming to reach a consensus”.

“This arrangement will help stabilize China-US trade, create better conditions for Chinese exports of relevant products to the US, meet domestic market demand, and strengthen trade cooperation in agricultural products, energy, manufactured goods, and consumer goods,” the ministry said in a statement.

While Trump and Xi’s summit was heavy on pomp and ceremony, their talks wrapped up on Friday with few concrete announcements on the myriad divisions between the superpower rivals, which span everything from trade to artificial intelligence and Taiwan.

Trump and Xi, who have held three face-to-face summits since last October, are expected to meet again at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shenzhen, China, in November, and the Group of 20 gathering in Miami, Florida, in December.

Trade between the US and China, the world’s two largest economies, has declined substantially since Trump, a longtime critic of free trade policies, returned to the White House in January last year.

Two-way trade totalled $495bn in 2025, down 25 percent from the previous year, according to the US Trade Representative.

Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, said the latest announcement did not point to a major shift in US-China trade.

“Instead, both sides have largely listed goods that do not move the needle on overall trade flows,” Elms told Al Jazeera.

“They may reduce some prices in the US for consumers, but none is going to make a dramatic difference in inflation figures or result in meaningful sighs of relief by most US buyers,” Elms added.

“The same is broadly true with the Chinese list. Although there are many different agricultural products on the list, most are not actually exported to China or not exported in meaningful quantities.”

Private dinner will be the first one-on-one meeting between the two men, according to reports.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is set to dine one-on-one with US President Donald Trump at the White House.

The meeting on Sunday evening, confirmed by Trump, comes after months of open conflict between the artificial intelligence startup and the Trump administration.

The private dinner would be the first one-on-one meeting between the two men, according to US media, including Axios, which first reported the dinner.

Trump confirmed the dinner on Sunday evening and reaffirmed his stance against slowing the pace of AI development.

Trump also reiterated his belief that new regulations would open the door for China to outpace the United States in AI advancement.

Although he acknowledged Amodei’s concern that going too fast on artificial intelligence could expand risks, Trump said it was more important for the US to maintain a technological edge over China.

“We’re about maybe a year and a half up on China,” Trump told Fox News while attending the Presidents Cup golf tournament in Illinois.

“We’re leading, and we’re building tremendous, trillions of dollars’ worth of places. And why should we give that up?”

The meeting comes two days after a federal appeals court upheld the Pentagon’s decision to classify Anthropic as a “supply chain risk”, which prohibits the US military from using its models.

The startup was sanctioned by the Trump administration after refusing in February to allow its tools to be used for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.

Trump also badmouthed Amodei, saying he was trying to be “a perfect little angel” after the Anthropic chief called for a pause in AI development.

Amodei was absent from the state dinner held for Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, attended by AI industry leaders, including Amodei’s rival Sam Altman of OpenAI.

Despite mounting calls to slow down AI development due to the risk of losing control of the technology, the US government believes that the sector’s major players – OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta – cannot afford to slow down for fear that China will gain the upper hand.

Trump and Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, are set to meet with leading AI executives on Tuesday.

Abbas Araghchi’s warning comes after Washington rejected a seven-day roadmap to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The nor’easter causes another round of flooding in low-lying areas in New Jersey and New York City and knocks out power to tens of thousands of homes into New England.

A powerful storm is pummelling the shoreline in the northeastern United States for a second day, causing another round of flooding in low-lying areas and knocking out power to tens of thousands of homes.

Tidal surges swamped low-lying neighbourhoods in New Jersey on Sunday, while wind gusts toppled trees on New York’s Long Island, damaging homes and bringing down utility poles.

In New York City, streets in the Howard Beach neighbourhood of Queens were inundated.

The slow-moving storm, which killed a New York City housing authority worker when a tree fell on Saturday, was expected to linger through Sunday, with heavy rain, strong winds and dangerous surf all the way to New England.

Extreme amounts of rain – more than 10cm (4 inches) since Friday in some spots in New Jersey – combined with a surging ocean led to flooding amounts not seen for close to a decade in places used to dealing with high water, residents said.

The storm, known as a nor’easter, triggered memories of Hurricane Sandy, which left behind more than $60bn in damage across the eastern US in 2012. While this storm’s impact has been nowhere near that, it could be the first of several along the East Coast this fall because of an El Nino climate pattern disrupting this year’s weather.

Images of waves crashing into sea walls and onto beaches raised concerns about coastal erosion.

More than 100,000 customers were without power across the Northeast and mid-Atlantic at times on Sunday, according to PowerOutage.us. The most widespread outages were in counties along the coast from New Jersey to Connecticut.

Numerous flights were cancelled or delayed up and down the coast. More than 250 flights had been cancelled at Boston Logan International airport by late Sunday morning as wind gusts reached 64km/hour (40 mph), according to the Massachusetts Port Authority.

The worst of the remaining rainfall was expected on Sunday from northern New Jersey into southern New England.

While the storm was gradually weakening, tidal flooding would stay through high-tide cycles Sunday night, said Bob Oravec, a lead forecaster with the National Weather Service in College Park, Maryland.

Cuba’s deputy foreign minister slams US sanctions, labelling them ‘equivalent to genocide’.

A senior official in Cuba has warned that any prospective United States military action taken against the island nation would constitute a serious international crime, and has rejected claims made by US President Donald Trump that Cuba is a failed state.

On Sunday, Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, the country’s deputy foreign minister, told the US cable television channel C-SPAN’s flagship programme, Washington Journal, that it would be an “atrocious international crime for the US to use military force against Cuba, which is a peaceful neighbouring country”.

His comments come after Trump said during his Tuesday speech at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that “freedom will be coming” to the island. His remarks prompted the Cuban delegation to exit the assembly hall. On Saturday, Trump brought up military action, telling reporters, “I don’t think we’ll need the military. Cuba is failing very badly.”

Fernandez de Cossio said that coercing nations who do not “submit” by disrupting their commercial shipments, attempting to handicap a population through starvation, depriving it of stable healthcare and withholding fuel, as the US has “done for nine months now”, is “equivalent to a genocide”.

The US has maintained a foreign policy of maximum economic pressure against Cuba for more than 60 years. The Trump administration has previously said that it wants a shake-up in Cuba’s government. Earlier this year, the administration enforced an additional oil and fuel blockade against the island, which has crippled the nation’s infrastructure, causing widespread fuel scarcity and rolling power outages. Government officials in Cuba cited systemic difficulties in securing food supplies and other basic necessities for the country of more than 10 million.

Fernandez de Cossio said Havana must ready its citizens for the prospect of US military aggression, adding that while Cuba recognises it might stand alone, it will still exercise its legitimate right to self-defence.

He explained that bilateral diplomatic channels with the US remain open but have yielded minimal results due to the economic stranglehold of ongoing sanctions, adding that Havana remains willing to engage with Washington in a “respectful manner” only if discussions accommodate mutual dignity, benefit both populations, and respect state sovereignty.

Several countries condemned the US’s continued economic sanctions and blockade of Cuba during the UNGA earlier this week.

As part of previous negotiations aimed at ending its war on Iran, the United States offered to sell Tehran uranium for use in a civilian programme, but Iran refused, a top US official said on Sunday.

“Heck, our negotiators even offered to sell them uranium,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said on NBC’s Meet the Press. He said the agreement would have been akin to that with the United Arab Emirates, which has “a peaceful programme, right there in their neighbourhood, and they abide by international law and inspection regimes”.

Waltz said the administration of US President Donald Trump was open to allowing Iran to keep a civilian nuclear programme, provided it agreed to its obligations in accordance with international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

There were “a number of ways” President Trump was open to dealing with Iran to ensure it did not have access to highly enriched uranium, or the ability to reconstitute highly enriched uranium, including by having Tehran “hand over” any such material it currently has, Waltz said.

The UAE, a signatory to the NPT, generates electricity from a nuclear power plant and signed an agreement with the US in 2009. Under those agreements, the UAE has agreed not to produce enriched uranium domestically, and not to reprocess spent fuel on its own. Trump said Saudi Arabia and the US reached an agreement on civilian nuclear use this year, but details have not yet been made public, and the US president has also claimed the deal is contingent on Riyadh agreeing to the controversial Abraham Accords. Around the region, Egypt and Turkiye also operate civilian nuclear programmes.

Pakistan openly operates a nuclear arsenal, while experts have long believed Israel secretly possesses one of its own. Neither country is a signatory to the NPT.

A key point of contention between Iran and the US has been what should be done with the uranium that Tehran currently has, and how, or even if, to ensure any future supply of the material is not capable of being used for producing a nuclear weapon. Iran has insisted it has no plans to create a nuclear weapon, and any uranium it possesses and enriches is only for civilian purposes, including for generating electricity and use in medical treatments and scientific research.

Iran is estimated to have more than 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched at 60 percent purity. Uranium enriched to around 90 percent purity is suitable for a nuclear weapon. Enriching uranium is a complex process that involves isolating the most radioactive isotope in a quantity of uranium. Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran agreed to cap its uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent under strict international supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy. Trump scrapped that deal in 2018, saying it was too generous to Iran.

On September 10, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it was concerned over Iran’s “continued noncompliance” with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory. Under the treaty, Iran agrees not to produce nuclear weapons and to meet IAEA safeguards to control its supply of uranium used for civilian purposes. The agency has not had access to key Iranian nuclear facilities since June 2025, when Israel and the US attacked sites in the country as part of a 12-day war.

Iranian officials have responded to the IAEA by saying the finding was made “under political pressure from the US and its allies”, and that they have not stopped respecting their treaty obligations, but could not allow inspections until facilities were safe from US and Israeli attacks.

At times, Trump has said he will destroy the enriched uranium Iran has or retrieve it by force. In April, the US president claimed to have convinced Iran to turn over the enriched uranium it had, which he referred to as “nuclear dust”. Iranian officials quickly dismissed those claims, saying enriched uranium would not be transferred outside the country under any circumstances.

On Saturday, Trump rejected a plan submitted by Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, as Tehran continued to insist that only diplomacy can solve the conflict between the two countries. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said on Saturday that Iran wants to make a deal to open the vital maritime corridor immediately only “because they are losing so badly”.

In an interview on Meet the Press on Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said that Iran is prepared for war to resume, “even if it comes to a doomsday war”.

He added, “If you ask us, there is no reason why we should go back to diplomacy. But I’m still trying diplomacy, because I think we shouldn’t miss any chance for peace.”

The two pandas, Ping Ping and Fu Shuang, arrived from southwestern China.

Two giant pandas, Ping Ping and Fu Shuang, have arrived in the US state of Georgia on a 10-year loan as a soft-power gesture from China.

A new agreement between Zoo Atlanta and the China Wildlife Conservation Association makes Atlanta one of three zoos in the US to house giant pandas.

The diplomatic gifts departed early on Sunday from Chengdu Shuangliu International Airport in southwestern China, according to Chinese state media. They arrived after the high-level three-day Washington summit with China last week, where closed-door talks between United States President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping yielded no major policy breakthroughs on prickly issues such as AI, trade, Taiwan and the war with Iran.

Although the pandas’ transfer had been finalised back in April, Xi officially announced the arrival timeline on Thursday at the White House, noting that the black and white mammals could reach Zoo Atlanta from the Chengdu Research Base, China’s premier hub for giant panda conservation, breeding and research, within the next few days. The dispatch of the vulnerable species aimed to signal a renewed bilateral friendship between the leaders of the world’s two biggest economies.

Ahead of their arrival, Zoo Atlanta had upgraded its panda habitats and secured a stable, long-term supply of locally grown Atlanta bamboo, which shares a near-identical climate with Chengdu.

The bears completed a 16-hour charter flight across the International Date Line, landing in Atlanta, Georgia, shortly before 7:00am (11:00am GMT).

Midway through its journey through Alaska, the FedEx Boeing 777 had spiked to the top of Flightradar24’s global tracking charts.

Steamed corn buns, bamboo shoots and carrots were prepared to keep the pandas nourished during their flight, Chinese state-run media reported. The US also mobilised a specialised care team to accompany the duo on their flight, they said.

A spokesperson for the zoo told Al Jazeera that their team had “done everything possible to accommodate them”, but a definitive timeline for their arrival – much less their public debut – remains “unconfirmed”.

“This is a thrilling day for Zoo Atlanta and a historic moment for the City of Atlanta, the state of Georgia and beyond,” Zoo Atlanta President and CEO Raymond B. King said in a statement. “We are elated to welcome Ping Ping and Fu Shuang and could not be more excited about sharing that joy with our Members, guests, city and community in the coming weeks.”

Zoo visitors will have to wait a while to see Ping Ping and Fu Shuang, officials said. The bears will be quarantined for about a month in a biosecure area of the wildlife park’s new giant panda complex. The zoo last had pandas in 2024.

Ping Ping, a male, and Fu Shuang, a female, were born in 2020.

Globally revered, the iconic furry animals have been sent across the globe for decades, serving as diplomatic emissaries loaned by China under its infamous “panda diplomacy” initiative through soft-power projection. Beijing leverages the animals’ immense public appeal to cultivate international goodwill, seal lucrative trade deals and burnish its geopolitical image abroad. Similarly, when foreign relationships fray or tensions arise, Beijing lets the loan agreements expire.

Xi has said this latest loan programme was an example of “friendship between the Chinese and Americans”.

Last week’s summit was Xi’s first visit to Washington in more than a decade and the second meeting this year with Trump.

Tangible outcomes of the meetings remain modest, restricted to a two-month extension of the trade truce, Beijing’s revival of giant panda loans and Xi’s support for Trump’s rebranding of artificial intelligence as “super intelligence”.

Tehran, Iran – Hours after US President Donald Trump rejected a diplomatic solution put forward by Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, explosions were heard in the waterway, according to Iranian media.

Reports of blasts near southern Iran’s Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz suggested that multiple antiship missiles and drones were fired at vessels transiting the waterway against Tehran’s wishes.

While Iranian authorities did not confirm any attacks in the Strait of Hormuz that day, shipping continues to be attacked in the waters, including an Indian cargo ship last week, which killed a sailor.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintains that the strait is closed to any ship that does not coordinate with Iranian authorities. On Sunday afternoon, it released video of what it said was a second US underwater drone seized this month.

Tehran has issued instructions to shipping companies transiting the Strait of Hormuz to use a temporary route approved by Iranian authorities and pay relevant fees. But it has also said the strait will not fully reopen until the US blockade on Iranian ports ends.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority announced on Saturday that it would blacklist any shipping charterer company which orders crews to use routes it considers to be unauthorised.

It also published what it described as an apology from an unnamed shipowner blaming commercial pressure from its charterer for trying to pass through the strait.

Washington still insists that its warships are successfully guiding oil tankers out of the strait via a different route. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox News on Sunday that the “running average” of crude oil in transit was nearly 13 million barrels per day.

A September 19 operational update by US Central Command claimed that its forces had helped move more than one billion barrels of crude out of the Gulf over roughly two months.

The US military also says its forces have redirected 122 commercial vessels to enforce the naval blockade of Iran’s ports, halting all Iranian crude exports.

Tehran has claimed that the US is providing false information regarding Strait of Hormuz traffic to project control over the key waterway. Shipping has been severely disrupted since the US and Israel started their war on Iran on February 28.

Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, said Iran’s strategy of launching maritime attacks has spread the economic costs of the conflict beyond its borders.

While Iran has suffered economically from war damages, the US naval blockade and sanctions, it would be a mistake “to assume that reaching that threshold produces submission”.

“The next Iranian move is therefore likely to be an attempt to increase the pain experienced by the Gulf rather than simply absorb further American pressure,” Krieg said.

“That could mean more aggressive vessel interdictions in Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure, greater Houthi pressure around Bab al-Mandeb and pressure from Iranian-aligned groups against alternative Saudi export routes. We are already seeing how pressure on Hormuz, the Red Sea and Saudi infrastructure can interact.”

More escalation on the way

At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Iran projected a message of defiance while also proposing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within a week if its seven conditions were met.

They included lifting the blockade on Iran, the release of frozen Iranian funds and an end to attacks on all fronts, including Israel’s assault on Lebanon. The demands mostly amounted to a return to the June memorandum of understanding between the US and Israel.

Tehran has added that reopening the strait must be undertaken through a bilateral arrangement already finalised with Oman, the only other country with territorial waters in Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump told reporters he rejected the offer, but Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday they were adamant about the conditions and would await an official response through mediators, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Oman.

Abolfazl Shekarchi, chief spokesman of the Iranian armed forces, warned that if the US further intervenes in the Strait of Hormuz, “it will get slapped”.

“The Americans have no way out other than withdrawing from the West Asia region. The sooner they leave, the fewer losses they will incur and the region will certainly become safe after that,” he said.

Iranian army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia  said conditions were deteriorating so badly for the US that it might launch another “military aggression” on Iran.

Krieg said that as the US moves to isolate Iran via sanctions, Tehran, unable to respond with mutual financial measures against Washington, will be forced to rely on continued coercion in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The most likely level remains controlled attrition rather than an immediate return to the massive air campaign of the opening months,” Krieg said.

“Over the coming weeks, I would expect further attacks or attempted attacks on tankers, US-enabled shipping and regional infrastructure, followed by limited US strikes against IRGC maritime assets, coastal missile positions, drones or vessels involved in those operations. That tit-for-tat cycle has already re-emerged around Hormuz.”

Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s latest proposal to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz as experts say the United States president believes Washington has more to gain by waiting than by accepting Tehran’s terms at this moment.

“I reject their proposal,” Trump told reporters on Saturday, arguing that Iran wants an agreement because it is “losing so badly”.

“They want to make a deal, and I think that’s fine,” Trump said. “I’d like to make a deal too. But that deal would not be acceptable.”

On Sunday, Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran had ⁠⁠seen the initial reaction from ‌‌Trump to its proposal but had yet to receive a response through ⁠⁠mediators. In the latest diplomatic efforts, Qatar has played a role in mediating talks between Iran and the US on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York.

Iran’s seven-day proposal included Washington lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports, waiving sanctions on Iranian oil sales, releasing an estimated $12bn in frozen Iranian assets and observing a wider regional ceasefire, including in Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran would then reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin negotiations with Washington on a final agreement.

The latest proposals are similar to the June memorandum of understanding (MoU) the two countries signed. But the MoU collapsed last month due to differences on the terms of the deal, which resulted in an escalation in attacks, particularly in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which essentially remains under Iranian blockade.

According to experts, Trump’s rejection suggested that while both sides continue to publicly leave the door open for diplomacy, they remain far apart over who should make the first concessions.

“Trump’s calculation looks fairly straightforward. He believes the combination of the naval blockade and economic isolation is finally squeezing Iran hard enough that Tehran’s latest proposal is evidence of weakness rather than an offer Washington needs to seize,” Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

His public argument that Iran is “losing badly” is important because it suggests he thinks time is improving the US bargaining position, Krieg said.

Why does Trump think he can wait?

A key part of Trump’s calculation appears to be a belief that the economic pressure on Iran has not yet run its course.

The Trump administration has escalated economic pressure on Tehran, tightening its naval blockade while imposing sanctions targeting Iranian oil revenues and threatening secondary sanctions against countries doing business with Tehran.

Last week, the US imposed aviation sanctions on Iran, disrupting flights. This came weeks after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an economic pressure campaign against Iran, promising to target Tehran’s financial interests across the world.

Richard Weitz, a senior nonresident associate fellow at the NATO Defence College, told Al Jazeera that the White House may believe it can “wait a bit and get better terms”.

There is also concern in Washington about Iran’s proposed sequencing, he said.

Therefore, Weitz said Washington may be calculating that “economic pressure over time will induce the Iranian government to make more concessions”.

“This is what occurred arguably a decade ago, leading to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal as the Iranian government decided it [the US] needed to end the economic sanctions in return for making concessions on its nuclear programme,” he added.

It is, therefore, possible that “we could see the same kind of trade-off in the coming months”.

Iran could make Trump ‘pay’

However, waiting for a deal also carries considerable political risk for the US president, experts said, because his Republican Party could lose November’s midterm elections.

A late August Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested 63 percent of Americans opposed the US-Israel war on Iran while 31 percent supported it. Rising fuel and transportation costs could also feed into broader cost-of-living concerns before the elections.

The problem for Trump is that time does not only increase pressure on Iran, Krieg said. “The gamble is that time cuts both ways,” he noted.

With the midterms approaching, Trump does not want to appear to lift the blockade, waive oil sanctions and release Iranian assets simply to regain access to a waterway that Iran itself disrupted, Krieg said.

“But every additional week also means elevated energy prices, continued military exposure and mounting pressure on Gulf partners.”

The essential closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted oil and gas flows from the Gulf nations, which depend on energy exports to finance their budgets.

Mohamad Elmasry, a professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera that Iran’s proposal could be viewed as “kind of throwing a bone to Trump” by offering a potential route towards lower oil and gas prices before the vote.

However, Iran may decide “to make Trump pay for declining the proposal and the increased economic pressure the country is under”, he told Al Jazeera.

“They may decide that this is the time to escalate … just as the midterms are approaching.”

The Republican Party is not doing well in the polls, and a number of its candidates are “distancing themselves” from Trump, he noted. Polls indicated that Republicans could lose their slim majorities in the US Congress.

It’s not just the Iranians under severe economic pressure because of the US naval blockade and ongoing sanctions, “it’s also the Trump administration,” Elmasry said.

Trump’s wait for more Iranian concessions could ‘backfire’

Trump “wants Tehran to reopen Hormuz without Washington paying the full economic and political price Iran is currently demanding”, Krieg said.

“The danger is that he is confusing Iranian pain with Iranian willingness to capitulate. Those are not the same thing.”

Iran is undoubtedly under pressure. Krieg said the sanctions and blockade are “biting”, which is precisely why Tehran needs an agreement.

But additional pressure does not necessarily produce additional concessions.

Iran could instead increase the costs of the conflict for its adversaries, Krieg said, including through the Strait of Hormuz, regional infrastructure and potentially Bab al-Mandeb, another strait between Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

In recent weeks, the strategic weight of Bab al-Mandeb has increased dramatically after the Iran-aligned Houthis expanded their control of Yemen’s Red Sea coastline.

This advance in effect has handed the Houthis unrestricted access to the narrow waterway, a worrying development for global shipping given the group’s track record of targeting vessels, including Israeli-linked ships, in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

The Houthis have already declared a naval blockade on Saudi ships in the Red Sea, which Riyadh began to use as an alternative shipping route to Hormuz for its oil exports.

“So this can backfire,” Krieg warned. “Trump thinks Iran’s clock is running faster than America’s. Tehran thinks the opposite: that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, global energy markets and ultimately Trump himself have a lower tolerance for prolonged disruption than Iran has for economic punishment.”

Ross Harrison, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, similarly told Al Jazeera that Tehran may now be “less worried about overplaying their hand than they are underplaying their hand”.

According to Harrison, Tehran now sees the risk of escalation as less costly than agreeing to something prematurely or appearing willing to compromise, particularly after Washington’s response to the proposal.

In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Saturday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country no longer trusts negotiations with Washington after attacks occurred during previous rounds of talks and were followed by sanctions.

“We have no trust in the American side and do not know on what basis an understanding can be reached with it,” Pezeshkian said.

Tehran betting ‘heavily’ on time

US-based analyst Harrison noted that Tehran was probably “not surprised at all” by Trump’s rejection and viewed the offer partly as a way to demonstrate to Iranians and the American public that it remained willing to negotiate.

Experts said Tehran understands the US president wants an exit he can present as a victory.

“Iran is betting heavily on time. … Its strategy is to keep the pressure high enough that he eventually comes back to negotiations while making that exit progressively more expensive,” Krieg said.

“The Iranian calculation is essentially: Do not give Trump the deal cheaply when he may need it more badly several weeks or months from now.”

Harrison said the Iranian offer was a “show of goodwill” intended to demonstrate Iran’s willingness to negotiate to both its domestic audience and the American public.

According to Krieg, “protraction” of the conflict was the “most likely outcome”.

“Both sides need a deal, but both currently think waiting will improve the deal they eventually get,” he added.

US president rejects Iran’s seven-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, saying the deal is not ‘acceptable’.